After this last camping/hiking trip I have had in-depth discussions with myself about which lens(es) to carry next time. I'm not a young buck anymore and the weight and $$$ of my pro zoom glass is more than I want to haul on the trail. So I was said to myself "just take the primes dummy". I already have the 35/50/85/300mm primes, but was thinking a wide angle sure would be nice.

As far as I can see, that leaves me with the choices of 20mm f/2.8 (94° Angle of View) or the 24mm f/2.8 (84° Angle of View). The reviews are promising so far. Has anyone had practical experience with either of these lenses? Will the 10° Angle of View difference be significant in landscape shots or even if in walkaround mode in the city?

Walk around with a zoom covering that range and test for yourself. The only real answer that will please you. The only other consideration is the distortion from each lens granting equal contrast and color rendition.

I have the old 20 mm f/4 and the 24 mm f/2.8, both manual focus. I like them both, but in the hills I tend to carry the 20 mm in preference to the 24. It has a look of its own, and gives more of a feeling of being in the vastness of it all.

I have always felt the Nikkor 24's were the weak point in an otherwise great Nikon lineup of primes. The 20 is a lot sharper IMO and as Helen stated, has a great look. I also think the 28 is sharper than the 24, so I tend to avoid the 24. JMHO.